Re: The endless influx of low-quality, low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon

On Wed, 27 May 2026 07:21:17 -0400
David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:

> Got it. You are in effect saying that if QA isn't coupled to commits then
> QA can't be taken seriously, isn't welcome. You may not be saying it
> directly, but that is the message you are sending. You are saying, if you
> haven't "done anything" or won't make commits, then your ideas aren't
> welcome. The message is : there is only one type of contributor to FG.

It seems to me that the problem here is not that FG people are simply
rejecting all the ideas of people who cannot (yet) contribute directly.

Instead the problem seems to be that no developer has found the
suggestions on this thread compelling enough to be worth spending their
time on. [However note that several developers have contributed
detailed explanations of their thoughts to this thread.]

And it looks like the proposers of the suggestion are unable to develop
the suggestion into actual changes to FG themselves.

So what do you suggest should happen now?


- Jules


> 
> I will still use FG because I've tried X and MS and they suck. FG is by far
> the best. But at least now I know that no matter what I discover or
> improvements I might have, unless I know how to code them, my comments are
> not welcome. The message is there is only one level/type of contributor.
> 
> Dave
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 7:12 AM James Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 27 May 2026, at 11:31, David Hudach <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >  The FG project should be able to take critique and criticism from
> > testing and analysis on all levels and "talking about stuff" should result
> > in some kinds of resolutions or maybe even consensus or at least the notion
> > that it's a serious topic.
> >
> >
> > Well, experience has shown that we can (sometimes) build a consensus here,
> > but that achieves … not a whole lot. ‘Doing stuff’ (commits / testing) is
> > worth 50x or 100x more than ‘talking about stuff’, even if it’s a
> > conversation that leads to a consensus. Because in the end, it’s commits
> > that improve the user experience when they download something.
> >
> > And to be blunt: talking is taken a lot more seriously when it comes from
> > someone who has previously *done stuff* (commits again). In the original
> > example of aircraft quality, if you or SP-NTX had spent the last six months
> > filling the GitLab tracker with fixes / patches to improve the ratings or
> > fix low-hanging bugs in:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/flightgear/aircraft-bugs
> >
> > … then I would take your comments many times more seriously than I do at
> > present. Other people have fixed plenty bugs in that time - Rhys
> > especially, Gijs and many others as well. Each of those commits has made an
> > immediate improvement to the end-user experience of people running
> > FlightGear.
> >
> > If you care about a topic, demonstrating a commitment to doing stuff *as
> > well* as talking about stuff, is what matters. Because otherwise we will
> > talk our way to a conclusion, but nothing will get done. If, say, you think
> > the ratings UI needs to change: you’re the one who needs to change the UI,
> > probably. You don’t need to build a consensus here *first*: made a PoC,
> > submit it, and then you and I and whoever else cares can debate the
> > technical / UX merits of it, with something concrete. Same for changing the
> > default ratings or anything else :)
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > James
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Flightgear-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
> >  



-- 
http://op59.net


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel